Would Candidates Back Sin Tax on Autos?

What’s not necessarily the news? “Candidates for Seymour’s Seat Oppose Higher Taxes” (Feb. 8) certainly isn’t.

If any candidate in the race for the vacated, dominantly Republican 35th Senate District were to propose higher taxes, he or she might as well turn in their lips and bow out. It’s simply an indigenous feature of the campaigning species!

So, is there (as the news article inferred) no difference between candidates in this issue of taxes? As species are made of subspecies with differences, yes, there is.

Last October, the Senate Advisory Commission on Cost Control in State Government recommended to the Legislature that a “shift” in the state sales tax collection method be implemented. Under the proposal, gasoline would be taxed at a higher rate than other commodities in order to discourage driving.

Recently, Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature have begun negotiations concerning the amount and type of increased taxation to cover the state’s current cost-control deficit. The governor is warming to the idea of a $1.7-billion state sales tax increase, although some Senate Democrats want higher income taxes. This opens the door to some crafty legislative chicanery or astute political compromise, depending on viewpoint.

My question to all of these birds-of-a-feather politicians is this: Mr. Candidate, if you were involved in these negotiations, would you support this sales tax rate shift burden on the private automobile?

How about it, candidates? Are you willing to give us some substantial differences?

LARRY M. KOENIG, Tustin